User talk:Gbjerkec
Jim McDonald (NB This is exactly the same message as I posted on the talk page of Hjlyio last evening): Would you please read why the "Murderers" category keeps being removed from Jim's page instead of keep re-adding it? Jez died in hospital because of a ruptured spleen while trying to attack Steve, not because Jim directly murdered him. Similarly, Des Barnes died of a heart attack, not directly at the hands of Tony Horrocks. Your other edits on the page have also been rolled back - we use UK English so the spelling of the word "behaviour" is correct. The other sentence you amended was also not grammatically correct. Karen2310 (talk) 22:49, December 16, 2016 (UTC) Gbjerkec (talk) 02:11, January 21, 2017 (UTC)'''Very well, I ask only that you add a set of rules as to what qualifies as a "murderer" in the future to prevent further confusion.Gbjerkec (talk) 02:11, January 21, 2017 (UTC)' 'Gbjerkec (talk) 04:50, January 28, 2017 (UTC)Also, I would argue that Tony Horrocks is in fact, a murderer due to his killing of Joyce Smedley. It may have been accidental, but so was Anne Foster's killing of her son, Frank. Given your own terms, since Tony killed Joyce directly, this would in fact, make his appearance on the "Murderers" category page appropriate. That, or Anne should be removed.'''Gbjerkec (talk) 04:50, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :Yes, sorry.... Tony's killing of Joyce had been overlooked. Karen2310 (talk) 08:58, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :Gbjerkec (talk) 13:03, February 8, 2017 (UTC)I think that Michael Rodwell's page is up to date. Unless there are some unaddressed details, in which case, we should add them. Otherwise, I don't believe that they're is any more to do.Gbjerkec (talk) 13:03, February 8, 2017 (UTC) Administrators I will answer your points as politely and fully as I can so as not to cause any further offence to you. You have made a few changes to pages, in all good faith, but ones which if you think about it, have little logical basis. Let me explain: the site celebrates its ninth birthday later this year. Well over a quarter of a million changes have been made in that time by several hundred editors and you are the first and only person who so far who views Steve and Jim McDonald as murderers within the storyline of the programme. As per your note on the talk page, you invited second opinions and so far none have been forthcoming supporting your viewpoint. Now, in your defence, you did spot an omission about Tony Horrocks but that doesn't mean all of your suggestions are correct or will be acted upon. On almost a daily basis, the three admins converse through email outside of the site and we make suggestions, some of which are acted upon, some of which are not. That means I don't always succeed in getting my views into practice but I accept that as being over-ruled by a majority. If I did ignore my colleagues and go ahead doing what I wanted to do, our working relationship would break down and this site would fall into abeyance. Such is life and I accept the greater good. Now on the subject of admin rights and arrogance - we are tasked with keeping this site up to the highest standards possible, that's why the founder made me an administrator. Some people come along who don't have your good faith and carry out explicit vandalism which we quickly reverse. Inaccuracies are not vandalism but they do negate the good work done to date and we will always correct them, even if the contributor strenuously disagrees. Yesterday, you made an error on the page for Roy Johnson, stating that Ray and Jerry heard Lynn Johnson's screams. They didn't, as a viewing of Episode 1461 (20th January 1975) proves. I reversed the change and also deleted the category stating that Roy Johnson was/is a convict as it was never stated within any episode that he was found guilty in a trial. You have made an assumption there that cannot be proven. It's an understandable error to make but if you challenge your own thoughts or opinions, you will see that such a declaration cannot be substantiated. Similar errors will be changed in the future should you choose to remain with the site. If you don't like that viewpoint, you can always report us - or me, if you prefer - to wikia central, but I will not stop keeping up the standards we have achieved over the past eight years, not for one moment. I have spent too many hours working on this site and too much money paying to search through archives to change that now.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 20:50, February 9, 2017 (UTC) Gbjerkec (talk) 18:53, February 10, 2017 (UTC)Except that I am not the first, if you look at Jim McDonald's page on the Villains Wiki, or your sister wiki, the Coronation Street Past and Present wiki, you will see that I am far from the first to view either of them as murderers. My main issue, however, regards your unwillingness to discuss matters with evidence. I understood completely that the sheer size meant that as an administrator you had your work cut out for you, so-to-speak and didn't want to discuss seemingly minor things with up-and-coming editors. What irritates me, is the notion that you can "close matters" you may not wish to debate these things, but others may gladly want to share their thoughts and I was hoping that if enough people agreed with me, and the claims could be supported, then we could save the changes I made. It's this notion that your opinion is the be-all-and-end-all that makes me consider if all the work I put into editing this site is worth it, because I may vhange something that one of you may see and not agree with it, and that somehow makes anyone who did agree with the change irrelevant. If you don't want us to make contributions to improve and change this site, then tell us and we will happily clear off, otherwise I want you to remember that your opinion is still just one opinion, and that things should be discussed before you go and change things you don't agree with, seemingly just because your administrator status allows you to do so.Gbjerkec (talk) 18:53, February 10, 2017 (UTC) :I refer specifically to your last paragraph and the answer is no. If you make a change that is in our opinion wrong, we admins will change it without debate if we are certain of our facts. You are free to stay or leave but that is the way we have operated since 2008 and the way we will continue to do so.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 19:26, February 10, 2017 (UTC) :Gbjerkec (talk) 20:12, February 12, 2017 (UTC)I can see we won't be getting along. It's a shame, I thought you would be more grown up than this. Like you said, you opperate fine without me, and I don't enjoy being here. Why suffocate myself with the stress and headache of trying to make arrogant and unreasonable people understand where I'm coming from? Like I said, I'll be here until Feb 20th, in case you have any second thoughts but I doubt that will happen. If you're comfortable with the way things are, then keep going. With the way things have progressed it's in our mutual interest for me to leave you to your insanity. Block me, report me, I don't care, it won't matter in 6 days anyway.Gbjerkec (talk) 20:12, February 12, 2017 (UTC) ::As you have seen fit to vandalise my user page, I'm taking the block option.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 21:10, February 12, 2017 (UTC)